S.K. Kar, J.
1. Heard Mr. K. Meruno, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chuba, Learned counsel for the respondents.
2. One Association, calling itself, Dimapur and Kohima Livestock Sellers Association, represented by its President, Shri Temsu Ao. has preferred this petition.
2A. The petitioner has challenged the validity of a letter/order addressed to Deputy Director (M & D) Veterinary and Animal Husbandry, Dimapur by Additional Director of Veterinary and A.H., Nagaland, Kohima bearing letter No. VET/AID-10/2001-02/ 1931-39 dated 17th May, 2001. Contention of the petitioner is that, such an order is illegal, arbitrary and it is in fact, restricting free flow of carrying business in livestock. (In fact it is not an order but a letter which is in challenge).
3. Facts, briefly stated, are as follows :--
The petitioner claims to be consisting of 25 members entitled to all rights given under the Constitution of India, and is carrying on business in livestock by way of bringing livestock from outside the State for distributing the same to different parts of the State of Nagaland.
4. That the letter (order) under challenged was Issued by the Addl. Director, Veterinary and A.H., (Respondent No. 4 for collection of token fee on the livestock for meat purposes to be collected at the Check posts. That the respondents in imposing tax for inspection of livestock in the market and also imposing token fee at the same rate in all the Check posts in the State is highly unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal inasmuch as it amounts to double taxation and thereby constitutes an unreasonable restraint on trade or profession. That once a permit is issued, the respondents have no right whatsoever to charge token fee in all the Check posts in the State of Nagaland.
5. Referring to Articles 16(b) and 301 of the Constitution, the petitioner claims that the letter (order as claimed by the petitioner although the impugned order has nothing to say that it is an order) in question has been violative of the said provisions of law.
6. For proper appreciation of the facts, it will be convenient if we reproduce the entire letter which goes as follows :--
No. VET/AID-18/2001-02
Dt. Kohima, the th May, 2001
To
The Deputy Director (M & D) Vety. & A. H. Dimapur, Nagaland.
SUB :-- REVISION OF TOKEN FEE FOR BIRDS PIGS AND OTHER LIVESTOCK FOR MEAT PURPOSE TO BE COLLECTED AT OCPS' IN THE STATE OF NAGALAND.
Sir,
I am to enclose herewith the Revision of Token Fee for all Check Posts in the State which will be effective with immediate effect. This is for favour of information and future necessary action. The revised rate is as follows :Sl. No.
Particulars
Revised rate1.
Elephant
-
Rs. 20/- per bond
2.
Cattle/horse/Fulo/Plg
-
Rs. 10/- per head
3.
Sheep/Dog/Goat
-
Rs. 5/- per head
4.
Chicken/Duck/Guse/Pigeon
-
Rs. 2/- per head
5.
Day-old Chick
-
Rs. 10/- per hundred
6.
Eggs
-
Rs. 2/- per carton of 6 plates.Yours faithfully,
(Dr. SEMLIKABA JAMIR)
ADDL. DIRECTOR OF VETERINARY AND A.H. NAGALAND : KOHIMA.
No. VET/AID-18/2001/02/1931-39 Dt. Kma, the 17th May, 2001.
Copy to :
1. D. V. O. Kohima/Phek/Wokha/Zunheboto/Tuensang/Mokokchung/Mon for wide publication under his jurisdiction.
2. VAS, All quarantine Check Posts.
Sd/- 16-5-01
(DR. SEMLIKABA JAMIR)
ADDL. DIRECTOR OF VETERINARY & A. H.
NAGALAND : KOHIMA'
7. Opposing the claim of the petitioner, the respondents 1 to 4 have presented their Affidavit-in-opposition through under Secretary, Shri Vikeyie Kenyor, Department of Veterinary and A.H., Nagaland, Kohima. They denied the allegations and submitted that the letter in question (impugned letter) dated 17th May, 2001 was issued under the provisions of 'The Nagaland Livestock and Poultry Contagious Disease Act, 1980 (Nagaland Act No. 4 of 1981, in short NLPCD Act) which empowers the respondents to collect token fees and that the Department cannot permit livestock and poultry business without health and vaccine certificate before they are sold in the market. That vide letter No. Vet/AID/3/,89/91 dt. 30-14, dt. 19-5-90, Government had decided for opening of three temporary Quarantine Check posts one each at (1) Delai gate (ii) Old Golaghat Road and (iii) New Golaghat Road respectively and to Impose token fees fixed by the Government, in consonance to Section 6(1) of the aforesaid NLPCD Act, 1980. That such certificate is required to be given in order to certify the meat as fit for human consumption. That such imposition of token fees by the Department in the Check posts is a Governments policy decision and accordingly this being practised at Quarantine Check posts (in short QCPS) and in slaughtering houses in the interest of public interest and Hygiene. That collection of token fees at different Check posts in the State is reasonable, prescribed and approved by the Government, and the Hon'ble Court may not interfere in such policy decision of the Government. Accordingly, it was submitted that there is no merit in this writ petition which may be dismissed.
8. On these rival contentions supported by annexures. both learned counsel appearing for both sides were heard. I have also gone through the relevant annexures enclosed in the writ petition and in the Counter-Affidavits. After filing of the Counter-Affidavit, the petitioner also filed another Affidavit-in-Reply, and part of para 6 of the said Reply goes as follows :--
'The deponent does not deny the fact that the respondents have the right to establish quarantine check-post and also to impose token fee. However, as provided under Section 1 Clause (ii) of the Nagaland Livestock and Poultry Contagious Disease Act, 1980 (Nagaland Act No. 4 of 1981), Section 3 to 8 of the said Act, which provides, inter alia, for establishment of quarantine check-posts and imposition of token fee shall extend to such areas and come into force on such dates as the State Government may by notification direct. However, till date no such notification has been made by the State Government. Therefore the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned order dated 17-5-2001 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) is in clear contravention of the above mentioned Act, and is liable to be quashed and set aside.'
9. In the background of the submissions, let us came to the contents of the impugned letter dated 17-5-2001. Now, on plain reading and perusal of the letter, it is seen that it is simply a letter with the purpose of revision of taken fees in all Check-posts in the State with immediate effect. It is not a question of double taxation as contended in the writ petition. At least the petitioner could not point out to any convincing evidence or make statement of facts elaborating to enable this Court to decide if there is any cause of double taxation, on the admitted facts and circumstances of the case, Annexure-B are photo copies of some certificates and money receipts which give no specific facts to come to any conclusion. Another letter of the same type dated 31-5-90 is Annexure-A where same rate of token fee has been prescribed and approved by the respondents, particularly in respect of :--
'1.
Cattle
Rs. 10/-
2.
Goat/Sheep & Pig
Rs. 5/-
3.
Poultry birds
Rs. 2/-.'
10.. On comparative study of these two annexures, one from the respondents and the other impugned annexures from the petitioner would show that rate for Cattle, Goat/Sheep and Pig and Poultry remains the same since 1990. So this revision of rate, in fact, is being effective from 1990. In Annexure-1, only some new items like, Elephant, Horse, Fulo, Pig, Dog, one-day-chick and eggs have been added.
11. The NLPCD Act, 1980 (Annexure-B) vide Sections 3, 6 and 8 empowers the Government with for power of health-check of the livestock and collection of token fees and Section 24 is relevant rule-making power of the Government particularly, Clause (g) and (h) of Section 24 will be significant in this case which goes as follows :--
'(g) prescribing the manner of disposal of infective animals under Section 21.
(h) prescribing the fee for vaccination and making under Section 6.'
12. It cannot be denied that even in the writ petition, the petitioner is to give some facts and legal evidence, either by admission or otherwise, to show that the impugned letter/order has violated certain provisions of law or is against the provision of the Constitution of India. In Shaik Madar v. State of A.P., AIR 1972 SC 1804 and Nazeria Motor Service v. State of A.P., AIR 1970 SC 1864, it was held that mere excessiveness of a tax or reduction of profits does not render it at unreasonable restriction on the freedom of business. The petitioner has admitted as discussed before hand (Para 9) that Government has power to levy tax. The only point pressed during hearing of the petition by the petitioner in this case was that there was double collection of tax. But the materials produced before the Court is not sufficient to prove exact case of any double collection, and therefore, no patent case of unreasonable restriction has been surfaced in this case. Bare act of simple imposition of tax by the State cannot be said to violate the Article 301 of the Constitution if the (sic) does not effect the movement of persons or goods insofar as it is decided by the State (AIR 1970 SC 1275).
13. Be that as it may, in the instant case, there is no case of restriction on freedom of business as such, as per the contents of the writ petition, the petitioner has failed to show any illegality in collection of token fees either. Certification of the livestock on health grounds during entry in the State at the Check posts has no infirmities. Equally there was no case of double taxation apparently on the basis of which or for that matter there is no case of unreasonable restraint on which Court can interfere. Therefore, I find the petitioner failed to make out his case for interference of the Court.
14. But then, before parting with the case, however, this Court makes it clear that any excessive imposition of tax will definitely not be in the interest of public, because the meat supply is for public consumption, and the State has a duty to see that the public get meat supply easily and against reasonable price. So minimum tax or even no tax will serve the public interest more effectively.
15. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed but with the observations as aforesaid.
.